NEC CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to calculate the interest payable to the petitioner on or before September 30, 2026, and to intimate the petitioner of the calculation. The Court noted that a substantial amount of interest was due and the delay in refunds was significant (37 to 46 months), stating that such delay and withholding of interest cannot be countenanced. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the calculated interest, they are free to make a further representation to the AO. The calculated interest is to be credited to the petitioner's account on or before October 15, 2026. In the event of non-credit by this date, the entire payable amount will carry an additional interest of 0.5% per month from October 15, 2026. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, NEC Corporation India Private Limited, approached the Delhi High Court with a grievance regarding the delayed payment of refunds for various assessment years. The petitioner contended that refunds were granted after a delay of three to four years, and the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to pay statutory interest as mandated by Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite numerous representations made by the petitioner to the respondents, no action was taken. The respondents' counsel could not provide a satisfactory justification for the delay in payment and the non-payment of interest. The petitioner provided a chart detailing the calculated interest due, which indicated substantial amounts owed and delays ranging from 37 to 46 months.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Assessing Officer has failed to pay statutory interest to the assessee for the delayed refund, as provided under Section 244A(1) and Section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite making several representations, the respondents have not paid the statutory interest due on delayed refunds, forcing them to approach the High Court for directions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel was unable to provide a satisfactory justification for the delay in refund payment and the subsequent non-payment of statutory interest. The revenue sought four weeks' time to calculate and pay the interest.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 244A(1),Section 244A(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010124102026 + W.P.(C) 4115/2026, CM APPL. 20104/2026 & CM APPL. 20105/2026 NEC CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Mr. Drona Negi, Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 25.08.2026 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that while the amount of refund was determined in the petitioner’s case for different years, the same was granted after a delay of three to four years and the respondent/Assessing Officer (AO) has not paid statutory interest for the period interregnum, as payable under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). 2. Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has made a score of representations This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:58:11
before the respondents, no heed has been paid and ultimately the petitioner has to approach this Court for issuance of the necessary directions. 3. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents was not in a position to give any satisfactory justification for the inordinate delay in making payment and then not paying interest which has been provided by the statute itself. 4. He, however, prayed that four weeks’ time be allowed to the respondents so that due payment of interest be calculated and payment be made. 5. For the purpose of clarity, the details as given by the petitioner in the memo of writ petition are reproduced hereinunder: 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. A perusal of the above chart and the amount of interest as calculated by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:58:11
the petitioner reveals that at a substantial amount of interest is due to be paid to the petitioner and the delay in making refund is also substantiated from 37 months to 46 months. Such delay and withholding of due payment of interest to an assessee cannot be countenanced. 8. We, therefore, dispose of the present writ petition and direct the AO to calculate the interest payable to the petitioner on or before 30.09.2026 under intimation to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the same, it shall be free to make a representation before the AO. 9. The interest so calculated shall be credited in the petitioner’s account on or before 15.10.2026. In case, the amount is not credited by 15.10.2026, the entire amount payable to the petitioner shall carry additional interest @ 0.5% per month payable from 15.10.2026. 10. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 25, 2026/sds This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:58:11
More judgments on Section 244A(1A)
- Itc Infotech India Limited, Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 2941/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2014-2015
- Nima Specific Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 70/AHD/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
- The South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur vs DCIT, ThrissurITA 182/COCH/2025[2007-08]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2025AY 2007-08
- Viacom 18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16(1)…ITA 1002/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 May 2025AY 2012-13
- Puranmal Delhiwala, Wadala, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 23(2)(6), MumbaiITA 3785/MUM/2024[1993-94]Status: Disposed21 May 2025AY 1993-94
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahadev Malik vs. Additional Commissioner, BhubaneswarOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Dillip Kumar Sethy vs. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Sri. R. Veerabhadrappa vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 6 Nov 2026
- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Dipankar Borgohain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026